TOWARDS A REFORM OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY IN 2012 A CFP HEALTH CHECK

Transcription

1 TOWARDS A REFORM OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY IN 2012 A CFP HEALTH CHECK by Indrani Lutchman Chris Grieve Sophie des Clers Elizabeth De Santo JULY 2009

2 Citation This report should be quoted as follows: Lutchman I., Grieve C., Des Clers S., De Santo E. (2009). Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2012 A CFP Health Check. IEEP, London. pp.80 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Koen Van den Bossche and Katherine McCoy for their input to this report and especially David Baldock for his invaluable contribution during the final stages of the report. This report was financed by the Oak Foundation and the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 8 1 Introduction 11 2 The Common Fisheries Policy Framework Origins and basis of the CFP Broad remit of the CFP The 2002 CFP Reform 14 3 The State of the European Community s Fisheries Resources and Fisheries Sector The Resources Sector status 15 4 Health Check of the Conservation Policy CFP Objectives An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Fisheries Management Recovery Plans, Management Plans and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Recovery plans and management plans Ecosystem-based Fishery Management Plans Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Technical conservation measures Compliance and enforcement Compliance Enforcement Role of the advisory bodies in Conservation Policy The Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) The Role of the Council in implementing the Conservation Policy Conclusions Recommendations 31 5 Health check of the structural policy Fleet management system and overcapacity post The Fourth Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) Entry-Exit regime Community Fishing Fleet Register (CFR) Fishing effort control Fishing capacity in relation to fishing opportunities Fleet segments Guidelines for an improved analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities Structural Funds and fleet capacity adjustment FIFG ( ) The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) Emergency measures De minimis Regulation Roles and Impacts of subsidies Bad subsidies Investments on board fishing vessels Young fishers Fuel subsidies World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations Good subsidies Conclusions Recommendations 47 6 Integration of the CFP within wider EU maritime policy Progress towards meeting the environmental objectives of the 2002 Regulation Implementation of the objectives Emergency measures Interactions with other EC Legislation The new Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) 51

4 6.2.2 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Other initiatives and legislation: Synergies and conflicts Conclusions Recommendations 56 References 58 Annex 1. List of initiatives and legislation with potential synergies and conflicts with the CFP 62 Annex 2. Annex I of the MSFD presenting Guidelines and Relevant EC legislation that Member States can implement towards achieving good environmental status assessments 63

5 ACRONYMS AC Advisory Committee HCRs Harvest Control Rules ACF Advisory Committee for Fisheries ICCAT International Commission for the ACFA Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Aquaculture ICES International Council for the Exploration of ACFM Advisory Committee on Fisheries the Sea Management ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bpa Biomass at precautionary approach level IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy Blim Biomass at limit reference point IMP Integrated Maritime Policy BMSY Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield ITQ Individual Transferable Quota CCAMLR Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic JDP Joint Development Plan Marine Living Resources MAGP Multi-annual Guidance Programmes CEC Commission of the European Community MCAP Management Committee Advisory Process CFCA Community Control Fisheries Agency MP Maritime Policy CFP Common Fisheries Policy MPA Marine Protected Area CFR Community Fleet Register MCAP Management Committee for the Advisory DCR Data Collection Regulation Process of ICES COM Commission Communication MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance DEFRA Department for the Environment, Food and MS Maritime Strategy Rural Affairs MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive DG Directorate-General MSP Maritime Spatial Planning EBCD European Bureau for Conservation and MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield Development NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation EC European Community NWW North Western Waters EEC European Economic Community OP Operational Programme ECR European Court Reports QMV Qualified Majority Voting EFF European Fisheries Fund RAC Regional Advisory Council EG Expert Groups RG Review Group EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment RL Research Laboratory EL Environmental Liability RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds engo Environmental NGO SBL Safe Biological Limits EU European Union SCM Subsidies and Countervailing Measures FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment FIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance SGRN Subgroup on Research Needs FMC Fisheries Management Centres SWW South Western Waters GDP Gross Domestic Product STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee GVA Gross Value Added for Fisheries

6 TAC TCM VMS WFD WG WWF WSSD WTO Total Allowable Catch Technical Conservation Measure Vessel Monitoring Systems Water Framework Directive Working Group Worldwide Fund for Nature World Summit on Sustainable Development World Trade Organisation

7 7 FOREWORD Of all the European policies that govern the exploitation of natural resources there is none that attracts the same level of criticism and public bafflement as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Why are we presiding over the demise of a once plentiful resource with so little apparent ability to reverse the plunge in so many stocks? Why do we persist in maintaining a much larger fleet than the diminished resource can support? Why do we still subsidise the fishing sector to a substantial degree? Is the talk of an ecosystem approach to stock management meaningful? The Common Fisheries Policy is over twenty years old and at a stage when a Health Check is overdue. The Commission has rightly raised some fundamental questions in starting a review due to culminate in a new policy from 2012.There is considerable consensus that business as usual is not an option but the prescription for change will require some painful choices. This report looks at two core issues amongst the multiple strands that make up the CFP. These are concerned with stock management and structural issues. Both are critical to sustainability. In each case we look back at progress since the 2002 reform and ahead to the possible options for the future, considering some immediate possibilities as well as opportunities that could be taken with a new policy in In doing so we draw on our own history of monitoring and commenting on the evolution of this troubled policy, both in analytical work and our European newsletter, El Anzuelo. We try also to set the CFP into the context of an ongoing European framework on marine policy stretching well beyond fisheries into a more holistic approach to marine management. Now is the time to be honest about the ailments affecting fisheries policy and to give environmental sustainability pride of place when setting new objectives and devising new policies.we do not wish to under estimate the efforts that have been made but they are not yet enough. David Baldock Director of IEEP

8 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2012, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) will undergo its third major reform. The review process was officially launched by Commissioner Borg in September 2008 with the publication of a non-paper which presented a very frank and timely analysis of the CFP to date. The non-paper included a review of progress since 2002 but clearly highlighted the key challenges in making further progress towards sustainable EU fisheries.the Council supported the Commissioner in his call for a comprehensive review of the CFP. This process began in 2009 with publication of the Commission Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and will end in 2012, at which time there are great expectations that the solutions to the current challenges of managing EU fisheries will be agreed and legislated for. IEEP has been tracking and monitoring the development and implementation of the CFP since the 1992 mid-term review. In light of this record of experience with the CFP, it seemed timely to undertake an independent review a Health Check of the policy. Our Health Check focuses on two key aspects of the CFP, the conservation policy and the structural policy but also includes a third issue concerning the further implementation of the environmental objectives of the CFP through other EU marine initiatives and legislation. The review of the conservation policy concludes that there has been some progress since 2002 towards achieving the environmental objectives of the CFP but the pace has been slow and in many respects piecemeal.the issues and topics of discussion and debate still centre around much the same crisis in EU fisheries as that which existed prior to This is despite the implementation of recovery plans, long term management plans, revisions of technical measures and improvements to the data collection system to provide a sound basis to the ecosystem-based approach to management. Furthermore, the paper argues that if decision making under the CFP continues to compromise the ecological sustainability of fish stocks and the marine ecosystems upon which they depend, it is difficult to imagine that there will be a reversal of the economic, and therefore social, decline in the sector. There is a compelling logic to the notion that securing the ecological sustainability of fisheries will lead to better long term economic and social outcomes for the sector and those whose livelihoods depend on fishing.this in turn will serve the broader public interest. Major developments since 2002 include the establishment of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA), the former to ensure stakeholder participation and greater transparency of decision making, the latter to ensure a more coordinated approach to control and enforcement. However, in 2009, there is already a need to look closer at further improvements to these bodies. The RACs were recently reviewed and their role post 2012 is likely to be modified pending decisions about further regionalisation of the CFP and de-centralisation of management. In addition, the CFCA may take on different responsibilities on behalf of the Commission if and when the new control regulation is adopted. Amongst the recommendations relating to the conservation policy post 2012 it is proposed that a new basic regulation for conservation and sustainable exploitation under the CFP should explicitly prioritise ecological sustainability over the economic and social dimensions in a new hierarchal CFP objective relating to sustainable development. It should also establish a viable legal framework for setting high-level principles and Community standards for conservation policy. A key proposal post 2012 is that ecosystem-based fisheries management plans should be established for all fisheries. This would extend the approach set out in the Communication on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and sustainability with regard to long term plans for groups of stocks that are caught together while taking into account the impact of fishing on habitats and the broader marine ecosystem. Ecosystem-based fishery management plans could be an important bridge between the particular and

9 9 urgent needs of fisheries management and the new Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). It is also recommended that technical implementation (or operational decision-making) of the conservation policy including but not limited to, technical measures, management and recovery plans and annual effort and catch limits, be delegated closer to the action either through regionalisation or comitology procedures and that the complexity and number of CFP regulations should be reduced. A review of the structural policy is presented in section 5 of this report and concludes that the 2002 Regulation marked a new effort to better integrate the CFP structural and conservation policy. The 2002 Regulation introduced the entry-exit regime, the new fleet management scheme with its three objectives of giving more responsibility to Member States to put measures in place to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleets, to simplify fleet management and to end subsidies for fleet renewal. This was a very positive development, supported by the Community Fleet Register (CFR).The adoption of the 2003 Regulation which requires Member States to report annually on their efforts to balance fishing capacity with fishing opportunities and the 2008 Guidelines for an improved analysis of this balance, using indicators, was also helpful. In 2002 Member States gained more responsibility overall, for the management of their fleet. However, there remain serious issues of non-compliance with reporting obligations and, as pointed out in the CFP Green Paper, overcapacity still remains a huge challenge which needs to be addressed in the pre and post 2012 period. The role of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in addressing the overcapacity issue is also discussed. At this early stage (the EFF has only been implemented since 2007) budget allocations clearly indicate the absence of any direct link between specific species recovery plans and fleet adaptation of the kind required. Instead, Member States have shown a clear preference for allocating funds to fleet adaptation and modernisation rather than supporting nature conservation. Therefore it seems unlikely that the fleet adaptation measures under the EFF will be more effective at rationalising the EU fleet, than under the previous EU financial instrument, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The report concludes that the emphasis placed on specific measures may become more obvious during the second year of implementation of the EFF, provided that links are made between fleet capacity adjustments and fishing opportunities. In relation to overcapacity, it is recommended that the links between fishing mortality, fishing effort and fishing capacity need to be further investigated and used to assess overcapacity as a matter of priority. Without these links being established for all ecosystems, fisheries and fleet segments, the structural policy will remain disconnected in its efforts to steer sustainable fishing capacity reductions. Finally, the review takes another look at the environmental objectives of the CFP and discusses the potential role of new EU marine initiatives and legislation in support of their achievement. The CFP Green Paper recognises that European fisheries must be considered in a wider ecological and economic context and thus inter-relations between the CFP and the new Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) need to examined and considered during this review of the CFP. Given the dependence of fisheries on the health and productivity of ecosystems, it is logical that the CFP incorporates measures for conserving the ecological systems required for the maintenance of fish populations. However, achieving an ecosystem-based approach in marine systems poses unique challenges and the current basic Regulation does not provide a step-wise approach indicating how the current CFP can overcome these. It is timely that the IMP and its environmental pillar, the MSFD, provide a new framework to support the CFP in meeting its environmental objectives. The MSFD sets targets for action over the next decade. By 2012, as the new CFP is launched, Member States will need to have preliminary assessments of good environmental status independently and collectively for their marine regions. By 2015 there should be programmes in place on both the national and regional levels, setting out how to

10 10 achieve good environmental status by The condition of fish populations will be an element of these assessments and will provide an additional driver for Member States to work towards achieving sustainable fisheries while reducing their impacts on habitats and sensitive species. The CFP Green paper highlights the importance of fisheries within the wider IMP and the MSFD. It states that the future CFP must be set up to provide the right instruments to support this ecosystem approach and asks the simple question how can the future CFP best ensure consistency with the MSFD and its implementation? To build on this opportunity the Commission now needs to highlight all the areas where Member States have no competence on fisheries and where action is necessary within the CFP to support the achievement of good environmental status both for fish stocks and for other elements affected by fishing activity. It is recommended that Member States seek an early statement from the Directorate General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare) on how the objectives of the MSFD are to be addressed by the CFP in concrete terms. At the same time the determination of good environmental status under the MSFD should be undertaken in such a way to ensure easy cross over of the results of this environmental assessment requirement into the decision-making framework of the CFP.A good example would be to link the new assessments to the setting of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) on an ecosystem basis. Establishing the right policy architecture in advance will tie together marine and fisheries policies at the same time as CFP reform is taken forward. In conclusion, the report while not covering all the aspects of the CFP, presents an independent evaluation of some key elements of the CFP and its potential interaction with the newly adopted IMP and MSFD and a series of recommendations for consideration during this important year for fisheries policy.

11 11 1 INTRODUCTION The state of the European Union s fisheries and its fisheries sector is an ongoing political and public policy challenge. Since the first basic regulation for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was enacted in 1983 the formidable goal for policy and law makers has been to create a regulatory and policy framework that fosters ecologically sustainable use of fisheries resources by a thriving fisheries sector that sustains a diverse pattern of fishing communities. The framing and implementation of the CFP and the achievement of sustainable outcomes has been dogged by the avoidance of some tough decisions, increasing regulatory complexity, the struggle to balance long and short-term thinking and the challenges presented by the political process. This has resulted in continued declines in fish stocks, overcapacity of fishing fleets and use of European taxpayers money to prop up or buy out poorly performing segments of the sector. The European Commission s 2009 Green Paper 1 on reforming the CFP was published in April As an institute IEEP has chosen to produce an independent Health Check on the CFP, reviewing progress since the 2002 reform and examining what may be needed as we move towards the next reforms timetabled for The Commission s Green Paper identified a number of aspects which should be considered at this juncture. We have chosen to focus on three different aspects in our review of the CFP: Conservation Policy; Structural Policy; and The relationship between the CFP and the EU Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) which is currently emerging. Our intention is to use our own Health Check and the individual thematic reviews as a platform for policy discussion and debate with the European institutions and the basis for discussions with other stakeholders with an interest in the future of the CFP. 1 COM (2009)163. Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

12 12 2 THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY FRAMEWORK Marine fisheries policy is an exclusive competence of the European Community (EC). This means that all decisions are taken at the level of the Union. Member States cannot intervene in fisheries management unless they are explicitly delegated the powers to do so. At present the main area for which Member States have such powers relates to inshore fisheries (with a maximum of 12 nautical miles (nm) from the shore). Community waters beyond these coastal waters are regarded as one big pond for fisheries purposes. The CFP thus provides the framework for European and national fisheries management activities. 2.1 Origins and basis of the CFP The 1957 Treaty of Rome, which formed the then European Economic Community (EEC), contained a passing reference to the products of fisheries within its definition of agricultural products (Title II, Article 38). At the outset, the primary aim of the then six Member States, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and France, was the establishment of a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Member States had little reason to push for a Community fisheries policy. Their most important fisheries were largely in international waters, outside their national jurisdictions. Where these stocks were jointly managed by two or more Member States this was done under the auspices of multilateral agreements. A number of founding objectives for a common agricultural policy were established by the Treaty of Rome, and by extension applied to fisheries policy (Article 33): Increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour; Ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture; Stabilise markets; Assure availability of supplies; and Ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. While the CFP has evolved in many respects, these underlying aims still apply today. It is unlikely, however, that the authors of the 1957 Treaty anticipated the development of a separate and substantial common fisheries policy as exists today. It was not until 1966 that the Commission took its first steps towards the formulation of the CFP as a consequence of pressure from France and Italy whose fishing industries were not particularly efficient and faced increased competition.they were fearful of the prospect of forthcoming EEC enlargement which was to bring in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland. A CFP should have been adopted by the end of the transitional period for implementing the EEC Treaty, which was set at 31 December This deadline was not met as the 1968 Commission proposal was only adopted in October 1970.Any significant progress was blocked for two years in the EEC Council by the practice of the Luxembourg Compromise, which required a systematic quest for consensus amongst all Member State governments before measures could be agreed. This slow progress expressed the lack of enthusiasm in all Member States except France. The lack of interest is also to be explained by the limited fishing grounds of the six founding Member States. Fishing limits then generally extended only to three nm and 90 per cent of the catch by the original six was taken outside these limits. Beginning in 1969, applications for membership from Denmark, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom totally changed the terms of the negotiation process. The prospect of multiplying fishery production fourfold and the potential institution by the applicant countries of an exclusive economic zone or fisheries zone extending to 200 nm sparked new debate.

13 13 Since the first regulations adopted in 1970, there have been three major reforms of the Community s fisheries policy: in 1983, 1992 and Seven years of negotiations led to the adoption of Council Regulation 170/83 formally establishing a CFP in 1983.The 1983 reform introduced the principle of relative stability which underlies the division of the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) into quotas and their distribution among the Member States. The principle ensures that Member States are allocated a fixed percentage of the TAC for a given fish stock. The allocation key took into account the historical fishing patterns of the Member States, the loss of fishing potential in non-ec waters following the extension of fishing limits to 200 nm by third States, as well as specific needs of regions particularly dependent on fishing industries (i.e. the United Kingdom and Ireland). A mid-term review of the CFP took place in 1992 resulting in the adoption of Council Regulation 3760/92. It attempted to address the imbalance between the fishing capacity of Member States fleets and available fishing opportunities. The reform prescribed a reduction in the size of the Community s fishing fleet, accompanied by structural measures to alleviate the socio-economic impact of such reductions.the CFP Regulation also introduced the concept of fishing effort, which provides a measure which can be used to limit the time vessels are allowed to spend at sea. The greening of the CFP, which began in the early 1990s, also moved forward in the 2002 review. The 2002 basic Regulation clearly stated its aims, namely to protect and conserve marine aquatic resources. Furthermore, it included a requirement to take account of the implications for the marine ecosystem when adopting management measures in parallel. European fisheries have changed dramatically during recent decades, with much more efficient fleets, higher fishing capacity and most European stocks deteriorating sharply. also aquaculture, secondary and tertiary production processes.this broad scope and historic basis is a reason for some of the policy incoherence within the CFP (Box 1). Four relatively distinct strands of the CFP can nonetheless be identified: Conservation policy governing the direct exploitation of Community fish resources with the aim of conserving and managing living marine aquatic resources, and providing for their exploitation on a sustainable basis; Structural policy - governing the modernisation of the sector, including expansion of aquaculture, marketing, processing, and vessel building and decommissioning aiming to achieve a balance between fishing capacity and fish stocks; Market policy - aimed at stabilising markets, guaranteeing supplies of fish products and ensuring reasonable prices for consumers and reasonable incomes for workers; and External policy - governing activities of vessels active on the high seas or in waters of third countries, and international trade in fish products. These four strands are not always entirely distinguishable in practice given that several span more than one objective. 2.2 Broad remit of the CFP Despite the CFP s rather humble beginnings, it has developed into a significant area of Community activity, consisting of a collection of more than seven hundred regulations. It spans not only fishing activities directly, but

14 The 2002 CFP Reform At the end of December 2002, the Council agreed to an important package of reforms to the CFP. These were primarily legislative changes to the conservation and structural policies. They reflected: 1. An intention to progress towards a more long-term approach to fisheries management signalling a move away from the annual decision-making on Total Allowable Catches (TACs), to multi-annual planning; 2. A new fleet policy to limit and gradually reduce overcapacity with Member States being given more responsibility for fleet and overcapacity management; 3. A commitment to improve the governance of the CFP, with the setting up of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) resulting in greater involvement of stakeholders in the policy making process and some measure of localisation. Box 1 Hunting versus husbandry It is clear that the conservation strand of the CFP fits rather uncomfortably with the limited and somewhat outdated objectives of the Treaty, and particularly those aiming to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress. This has been a key reason behind the failure of the CFP to conserve fish stocks, historically focusing on increasing fish production through improved technology. Even now, the CFP is as much a social policy as a resource management and conservation policy. Fishing and aquaculture are different activities, each demanding specific management approaches. Fishing is a hunting activity with the management of exploitation of mobile, shared, renewable and exhaustible resources being of central importance, whereas aquaculture is a husbandry activity commanding a similar approach to terrestrial agricultural management to some extent. The 2002 reform was preceded by the adoption of a series of action plans and since 2002 a range of implementing legislation has been put in place to implement the new framework with a view to meeting the revised obligations. The effect of these changes is a central theme of this report.

15 15 3 THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY S FISHERIES RESOURCES AND FISHERIES SECTOR 3.1 The Resources In 2008, the European Commission, in a policy statement about fishing opportunities for 2009, stated very plainly that in many sectors, conservation policy is not delivering sustainability and fisheries management in the European Union is not working as it should 2. Of the 43 per cent of stocks which are currently assessed, more than two-thirds (68 per cent) are thought to be at high risk of depletion, leaving only 32 per cent considered to be harvested sustainably 3.This means that fewer than 14 per cent of all CFP managed stocks are thought to be sustainable. Equally worryingly, stock status was unknown for some 57 per cent of stocks managed under the CFP, because, according to the Commission, catch data were so poor as to prevent reliable stock assessment 4. Estimates also suggest that 88 per cent of EU fisheries for which maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be calculated are subjected to overfishing that is so serious that more fish would be caught if there were less fishing 5. In a final indictment against the efficacy of fisheries management in EU waters, the Commission quotes scientific advice saying that 19 per cent of stocks are in such a bad state that there should be no fishing 6. The Commission reported that fishing effort and fishing mortality for cod as well as for other stocks, is still too high and that the existing regime cannot deliver further reductions because complex derogations offset any reductions achieved 7. Against this backdrop, several recovery plans have been implemented since 2002 for depleted stocks in European waters; these aim to return stock levels to MSY over specified time periods. However, most demersal fish stocks have declined and are either suffering, or are at risk of, reduced reproductive capacity 8. Some pelagic stocks fared better with the exception of bluefin tuna, and species such as sandeel and capelin were scarce 9. One explanation for this further erosion of the resource is that the TACs and quotas agreed by Council are very often in excess of scientific advice and that this tendency by the TAC machine has not been eliminated since the last reform process 10. Indeed, the Commission s own estimation is that TACs decided by Council have been on average about 48% higher than the catches that scientific advice suggests are sustainable in accordance with the precautionary approach 11. Since 2003 and the progressive implementation of the 2002 CFP reforms, the Commission reports that there have been no significant signs of stock recovery or reductions in overfishing and: effort management systems have not worked as expected.there are serious problems in the enforcement of fishing opportunities, and implementation problems need to be addressed. 12 The Commission s damning observations echo comments and reflections made in 2007 by other stakeholders and researchers. The international environmental organisation, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) concluded that the way TACs and quotas were set and the outcomes they achieved within the current decision-making framework revealed the systemic failure of the CFP 13. Similarly, Sissenwine and Symes, in their mid-term reflections on the CFP for the Commission, concluded that while the scientific enterprise supporting the CFP is of high quality and the advice sound, the fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide Sector status Fishing outside safe biological limits, indeed above MSY, affects fisheries productivity (reproductive capacity), which in turn results in negative economic and social consequences. Excessive fishing pressure, driven by continued overcapacity, relentlessly undermines the productivity of fish stocks, further weakening and damaging the very foundation of a sustainable future for the EU s fisheries sector. The annual report presented by the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in January 2 COM(2008) 331, final Fishing Opportunities for Policy Statement from the European Commission. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Formerly labelled by ICES as outside safe biological limits. 9 COM(2008) 331, final Fishing Opportunities for Policy Statement from the European Commission. 10 WWF (2007) WWF mid-term review of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.WWF European Policy Office. Brussels. 11 Ibid COM(2008) 331, final Fishing Opportunities for Policy Statement from the European Commission 13 WWF (2007) WWF mid-term review of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.WWF European Policy Office. Brussels. 14 Sissenwine M. and Symes, D. (2007) Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy. Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. 75pp.

16 on Member States efforts in 2007 to manage or reduce the fishing capacity of their fleets concluded that the fishing capacity of the EU fleet was reduced by about two-three per cent in 2007, following the overall trend of the last 16 years 15.The trends for individual Member States show considerable variation and lead the Commission to conclude that CFP-wide capacity adjustment measures are of questionable effectiveness 16. now believe the fact that fish have been harvested under the CFP, does not provide their customers with sufficient guarantees for sustainability. 21 This is a helpful acknowledgement of another aspect of the broader public interest at stake which is currently being failed. In addition there is an absence of reporting from the United Kingdom and a general failing by Member States to make clear links between fishing effort management and fleet capacity adjustment. This, reported the Commission, was because most of the remaining Member States reports were not compiled in such a way as to enable this analysis to be performed 17. However, the fleet capacity reduction that did occur seemed, to the Commission, mainly driven by poor economic performance by the relevant vessels or the availability of Community or national funds for decommissioning, rather than fishing effort adjustment measures 18. Against this backdrop, the Commission also estimates that technological development ( technology creep ) accounts for a two-four per cent increase in harvesting capacity per year in many fisheries 19. Additional temporary and specific measures for restructuring the fleet were adopted by Council in These and other aspects of structural policy are discussed in section 5 below. Suffice to say, the quest to find a sustainable balance between capacity and so-called fishing opportunities is also failing to produce ecologically sustainable fisheries. When one combines the overcapacity of the fishing fleet with the decline in fish stocks and the volatility of fuel prices, the economic efficiency and general profitability of the sector as a whole is low 20. By 2001 the relative contribution of domestically caught fish to Europe s seafood supply had declined from 75 per cent in the 1970s to less than 40 per cent, meaning that more fish were being imported from outside the EU to supply European consumers. The prognosis for the sector makes for grim reading when the Commission acknowledges that: Worse, major retail chains 15 COM(2008) 902, final Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Member States efforts to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 21 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid Accessed on 8 April Ibid.

17 17 4 HEALTH CHECK OF THE CONSERVATION POLICY 4.1 CFP Objectives Following the 2002 reform, the main objective of the CFP was set out in a new basic Regulation, Regulation 2371/2002. Article 2(1) states that: The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. 22 The preamble to the 2002 basic Regulation requires that, while pursuing an objective of sustainable development, decision-makers shall take into account economic, environmental and social aspects in a balanced manner 23. Article 2(1) goes on to add further context to the objective: For this purpose, the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. It shall aim at a progressive implementation of an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. It shall aim to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account the interests of consumers. 24 The Regulation does not specify how this balance is to be achieved, or how the objective will be implemented in the day-to-day management of fisheries.that is, how the objective should guide decision-makers when facing the trade-offs between the three aspects of sustainable development 25. While the above sub-paragraph of Article 2(1) does use the term shall in reference to application of the precautionary approach, this appears to be mitigated by the subsequent aims linked to the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. To put it simply, no single aspect of sustainable development is prioritised over another. The annual Council horse-trading over TACs and quotas, the disparity in many cases between scientific advice and the eventual outcomes serve as evidence that neither ecological sustainability as an objective nor the precautionary approach are actively or routinely applied as a matter of priority. If decision making under the CFP continues to compromise the ecological sustainability of fish stocks and the marine ecosystems upon which they depend, it is difficult to imagine that there will be a reversal of the economic, and therefore social, decline in the sector. There is a compelling logic to the notion that securing the ecological sustainability of fisheries will lead to better long term economic and social outcomes for the sector and those whose livelihoods depend on fishing.this in turn will serve the broader public interest. A significant move towards better ecological outcomes would be to reframe the CFP objectives so that the ecological sustainability dimension is the first and highest priority consideration above the economic and social dimensions. This would involve specifying, for example, that the CFP shall first ensure that exploitation of living aquatic resources is ecologically sustainable in a manner that is consistent with the application of the precautionary approach. This would mean that after considering the ecological sustainability dimensions of CFP-related decisions, the economic and social conditions may be considered. Commission proposals would then have to be formulated by first applying the overarching objective and guiding principle and framed in terms of how ecological sustainability is being pursued in a manner consistent with the precautionary approach. Equally the objectives would be unambiguous for the Council and Parliament. The purpose in suggesting a hierarchical approach to the objectives of the CFP with ecological sustainability firmly at the top is not to render invisible the important social and economic dimensions of the sustainable development triangle, but rather to attempt to tighten the focus on the single most important condition that makes the sustainability of the other two possible. 22 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 23 Ibid. 24 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy 25 Sissenwine M. and Symes, D. (2007) Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy. Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. 75pp.

18 18 Such a fundamental change in objective would in turn serve to link to other dimensions of the CFP that would aid the pursuit of ecological sustainability, such as ecosystem-based management, the use of long term management plans, (MSY) and other supporting measures such as harvest control rules (HCRs) all of which are discussed in subsequent sections of this paper. Such a change could also lay the foundations to guide the advisory and decision making processes for a truly reformed CFP and thereby pave the way for a regulation which set guiding principles at the EU level This would also mean that the competence for operational fisheries management decision-making pushed closer to where fishing takes place, at a regional level. A subsequent section of this paper touches briefly on the role of advisory bodies in the context of conservation policy. 4.2 An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Fisheries Management Article 1(2) (b) of the basic fisheries Regulation 2371/2002 enables decision-makers under the CFP to create coherent measures to limit the environmental impacts of fishing 26. In addition, Article 2(1) refers to the aim of progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and applying the precautionary approach to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems: The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. For this purpose, the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. It shall aim at a progressive implementation of an eco-system based approach to fisheries management This is at best a vague guiding principle, rendered optional by the wording shall aim and gradual by the phrase progressive implementation... In 2002, before the adoption of the new basic Regulation, a Community Action Plan was developed to integrate environmental protection requirements into the CFP 28.The objective of the plan was to achieve integration by defining guiding principles, management measures and a work programme. The guiding principles for environmental integration made reference to the achievement of the environmental objectives set out in Article 174 of the EC Treaty, without prejudice to its economic and social objectives, as well as the aim of progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach, to the extent permitted by scientific knowledge 29. The highest priority measures were multi-annual management plans that attempted: To reduce fishing pressure to sustainable levels, targeting activities having adverse effects on the sustainability of fish stocks; To achieve favourable conservation status of non commercial species and habitats; as well as reducing discards, incidental by catch and impacts on habitats by improving fishing methods; and To develop an Action Plan on discards, and proposals to protect sharks, cetaceans and sea birds from the adverse effects of fishing. Some of the overarching principles and specific measures of the Action Plan were rendered obsolete when the new basic Regulation came into force and some of the laudable aims are yet to be realised (e.g. reducing fishing pressure to sustainable levels and reducing discards and incidental by catch or habitat impacts). However, the Plan continued to be implemented after the 2002 CFP reforms and has resulted in a number of proposals and some regulations on the following: 26 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 27 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 28 COM(2002) 186 final, Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy. 29 Ibid.

19 19 Discards 30,31,32 and indicators 33 ; MSY 34 ; Data collection 35 ; Cetacean protection measures 36 ; A shark action plan 37 ; and Protection of vulnerable deep sea ecosystems 38. Taken collectively all these initiatives could be said to be consistent with the aim of progressive implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. In its most recent Communication in 2008 about its progress on implementing an ecosystem-based approach the Commission, acknowledged the complexity in relation to objective setting, governance and information, also presented a list of next steps and individual actions to advance implementation of this approach to fisheries management 39. A hint of the direction that could be taken under a reformed CFP is embedded within the paper: There is also a need to spell [objectives] out and make them operational for specific ecosystems and fisheries. This must take place in interaction between the European institutions, governments and stakeholders. The main mechanism for interaction with stakeholders within the CFP is the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). The general boundaries of an overall ecosystem approach will be defined by identifying good environmental status through the implementation of the Marine Strategy Directive. Specific objectives for fisheries will be developed through long-term management plans based on the MSY 30 COM(2002) 656 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish. 31 COM(2007) 136 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries. 32 SEC(2007) 380, Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A policy to reduce unwanted bycatches and eliminate discards in European Fisheries. Impact Assessment. 33 INDENT (2006) Indicators of environmental integration. Final report FISH/2004/ pp 34 COM(2006) 360, final Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield. 35 Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 36 Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. 37 COM(2009) 40 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. 38 Regulation (EC) No. 734/2008 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas from the adverse impacts of bottom fishing gears. 39 COM(2008) 187 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management. concept, but will in the future also integrate considerations of ecosystems impacts of the specific fisheries concerned. 40 However, without a unifying framework of Community standards and a coherent and logical strategy tying together the disparate pieces of work, the list of next steps appears to be a continuation of a piecemeal and gradual approach to implementation. The lack of a comprehensive strategy or framework of Community standards, or of a sense of urgency, raises some serious questions about the pace of change. There are also questions as to what happens to the valuable research and consultation that is conducted on relevant issues, how results and next steps are communicated transparently, and finally how, specifically, results filter into the policy-making domain and day-to-day fisheries management decisions. Without a comprehensive framework, how is the precautionary approach applied consistently and transparently to ecosystem-related matters? A significant aid to understanding the ecological issues faced by individual fisheries and determining priorities for action would be to conduct Ecological Risk Assessments (or Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)) of each regional marine ecosystem.these could perhaps be aligned with the boundaries of the seven RACs). Such a requirement with accompanying standards for implementation could help to accelerate the pace of change and be introduced as part of the reform in The pursuit of ecological sustainability would be greatly enhanced by abandoning the progressive and piecemeal approach to ecosystem-based management. This could be achieved by integrating ecosystem-based management into the overarching objective of the basic fisheries regulation, and setting out a framework of Community standards within a comprehensive strategy. This strategy should integrate the measures by which ecological sustainability will be achieved with the measures for long term management plans, technical measures, data collection, scientific advice and ecological risk assessment, and the formulation of the role of the RACs. 40 Ibid.